A Monday morning question for my new friends

My reason for joining Atheist Nexus is mainly my distaste for any and all religions created by man that presume to know or have faith in the knowledge of a god, what his or her overall requirements are of us people and what they do to others who disagree. I am not able to remain passive on this issue as I see it as one of if not the main problem with mankind.

However, there seems to be a connection between distaste for world religion and disbelief in god. But if one avers that he knows there is no god then are they not doing the same as those who say there is, suggesting knowledge of something that can not be known?

I can look at evolution and SEE this at work. I can SEE the religions of the world throughout history and currently causing nothing but havoc.

But can anyone honestly, without using feeling, faith or belief, state that they know there is no god? Or is it the definition of god that is the problem?

I do not see a god made of magic wonder stuff as being an option. As Daniel Dennet said this would be a much different universe if it did.

So is that what we are saying we do not believe in, a metaphysical, paranormal, divine being outside of time and space? And if so does that leave room for another definition of an original creator?

Replies to This Discussion

To refute a particular god, you need to define what it is, what its characteristics are and what it is supposed to have done and be capable of doing. If the god cannot be so defined, then it might as well be nothing, or non-existent. Some people believe in a particular god, and call it Allah or "God" or Yahweh. However, I find no evidence for such a god, which I would expect to find, if the definition is correct. Furthermore, I find natural explanations of all that is in the universe to be adequate.

I do not claim to have proven that there is no god, simply that there is no good reason to believe that there is one. I qualify myself as an agnostic atheist. In other words, I do not believe that there is a god, but I have not proved that there is not. I feel quite justified and content to live my life as if there is no god, and being in a state of lack of belief, the label atheist applies to me.

On the other hand, if one is to take a look at the propositions put up in favour of a god, by the religious, and compare that to reality, I find the comparison to be one which makes the gods proposed look stupid, abhorrent, incoherent, and just as my atheism, unproven.

Define an original creator however you like, and believe in it if you will, but don't expect me to believe it without good confirming evidence. Other wise I shall continue as an agnostic atheist, who finds the concepts of gods to be stupid, abhorrent, incoherent, and just as my atheism, unproven.

The fact that there are variations of gods, and that you might propose a new one, is weak evidence that gods are the products of the minds of human beings. I don't see any good reason to worship or admire as real, something which very likely originated purely in the mind{s} of some other human{s}, (far more unlikely is that these conceptions of god were derived by knowledge of reality). I am not about to accept as true something which seems unlikely, simply because someone tells me that it is the truth. I need more than that.

I see no need to modify my way of life for a stupid, abhorrent, incoherent or unproven concept, for which there is no reasonable evidence.

No one has the knowledge of what lies beyond what we have observed in nature and the universe. I will say that I do not believe, based on what I can tell, that there is a god as described by the religions of this world. If one looks close enough we can all see the similarities in the gods created by man and how much these gods resemble man. Gods are anthropomorphic constructs in my humble opinion.

To say that there is no god at all would be difficult to prove because we are not privy to all the information yet to be revealed through observation and exploration of space and the universe or what lies beyond.

This, from Gila and Aimeejoe so far, is what I was hoping to hear, that we can agree that there is a mystery and question that has yet been unanswered by the religions of mankind. These religions have always bore a striking resemblance to the governments of people that realized early on that if you prey on a peoples weakness and fear you can much better control them.

I used to call myself agnostic when I was quite young but as I learned more about the nature and history of humanity I decided Atheist was a bit closer to the mark. It will have to do until evolution works its magic on all this divine silliness and sends it the way of the Greek and Roman gods.

Not to pick on your post, but I just thought I'd take the chance to expand on a point here. After all this time I have to say that the "you can't prove a negative" mantra still bugs me as much as it did the first time I heard it. If I say there isn't a green bear in my bedroom, that statement is not only provable despite being a negative, but it is actually self-evident. There is nothing in a negative statement that makes it inherently unprovable. What makes a statement unprovable is either its vagueness or its scope - but then again, that applies to both negative and affirmative ones. Which brings us back to the opening post.

Can I honestly state that there is no god? Maybe. What I can certainly state is that if a definition of "god" is provided - which is a key point that cannot be stressed enough - then a statement about the existence or non-existence of that god is potentially provable. Which is what makes the Judeo-Christian deity - the way it is commonly described, anyway - relatively easy to dismiss as downright impossible.

I suggest you read through my last paragraph a second time. I'm an atheist. What I said is that a statement about the non-existence of a god is potentially provable if a coherent and accurate definition of that god is provided. The fact that god is often described as mysterious is really not a problem. The fact that god is described as omnipotent is enough to nail it down as a physical impossibility since it conflicts with observations of the universe as we know it. No need to get defensive just because you haven't understood what I've written.

"EVERY definition for god/gods/Maya/spirits/voodoo etc. all contain within their definition some property that precludes detection."

Yes and no. A believer may claim his or her god is inherently undetectable, thus shielding his or her own belief from rational scrutiny - or so they think. That's hardly the case. They always make the mistake of providing some bit of additional information sufficient to effectively disprove the possibility of that god's existence. In the case of the Judeo-Christian good, omnipotence is enough to do the trick. The fact that divine omniscience is also incompatible with free will helps too. The negative statement that the Judeo-Christian god in it's most common configuration does not exist is not unprovable at all.

Ok, apparently my message is not getting through. I'll put it more plainly. The moment a believer defines his or her god as omnipotent, that deity is effectively disproved. Omnipotence - infinite power - in this universe can only be translated into infinite energy, and the obvious implication of a deity made of infinite energy in light of the mass-energy equivalence is enough to make such a deity a physical impossibility. Yes, Einstein killed god. You want detectability? An omnipotent deity would be detectable alright, its temperature would be infinite and make the very existence of mass impossible.

Stephen J. Gould has proposed that if we “ran the tape” of evolution again we would not get the same result. For example, we might not get human beings. Indeed, we might “run the tape” a thousand different times and get a thousand different sets of species. In other words, there is a certain contingency rather then inevitability to the evolutionary process. There are so many variables that one cannot predict in advance the path evolution will follow.

If there are so many paths, each of which is dependent on millions of accidental occurrences, great and small, then this leaves open the possibility for an original Mind to manipulate the process to get a specific result.

Therefore God and natural selection are not mutually exclusive. The original Mind could have guided the path of natural selection in a certain direction to get human beings as an end result.

A god made of magical stuff that does not interact with the physical world is not falsifiable. Of course, such a god would be indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.
But the god that almost every theist believes in is said to interact with the physical world--and almost every religion makes testable claims about the physical world. The Bible, claimed to be the Word of God, says the world is flat, rests on pillars, the sky is a dome, the stars can all fall to earth, bats are birds, bugs have four legs, mustard plants have the smallest seeds, and other falsifiable claims. Claims that have, in fact, been falsified, causing Christians to retreat to claiming that some Bible verses are metaphors (which apparently don't have to be accurate), or to retreat even further by claiming that God uses natural processes to do his work, which is thus not distinguishable from natural processes. Again, this God very much resembles a non-existing being.
So no, we can't prove God doesn't actually exist, because magical non-falsifiability is built into the definition. He can always hide from us, and he can do anything he wants without leaving fingerprints. But why believe in a supreme being that is indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist? It's not a matter of "knowing" such a creature can't be real, but a matter of what is reasonable to believe. It is not reasonable to believe in a god whose supposed interactions have been falsified, and a god that can't be detected cannot interact with the world in any meaningful way.
So why bother?